OSH Principles in Case Law

Precedents
 Still to do
• Check croner for case law and include info on
damages
• Find case law on vicarious liability
• Check local cases and match to UK cases;
check courts website for full Boyce case;
include more recent cases
 English Case Law
• Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd vs English – Duty
of Care; Vicarious Liability
• Edwards vs National Coal Board – Reasonably
Practicable
• ?? ‐ Vicarious Liability
– Lynch vs Binnacle
 Duty of Care –
Wilsons and Clyde Coal Ltd vs English (1938) ‐
Mr English was employed at Wilsons & Clyde
Coal Co Ltd’s coal mine. He was repairing an
airway. While he was going to the pit bottom,
the haulage plant was put in motion. He tried
to escape through one of the manholes, but
was caught by a rake of hutches and crushed
between it and the side of the road.
His family claimed damages. The company
claimed that Mr English’s own negligence
contributed to his death, because he should
have told the person in charge of the
machinery, or taken an alternative route.
 Duty of Care ‐ Judgement
House of Lords held unanimously that an
employer has a non delegable duty to create a
safe system of work. Even if an employer gives
that duty to another person, they still remain
responsible for workplace safety.
The House of Lords held that the employer must
provide:
• proper and safe plant and equipment
• safe systems of work, with adequate
supervision and instruction
• safe premises, including safe access and
egress
• safe and competent employees.
 Reasonably Practicable ‐ Edwards v
National Coal Board (1949)
Mr Edwards was killed when a section of
underground roadway in a mine collapsed
onto him while he was walking along it. The
National Coal Board (NCB) held that the cost
of shoring up the roadway would have been
prohibitive and was therefore not justified.
The plaintiff was Edwards' widow. The case
ended up in the Court of Appeal, which had to
consider whether or not the NCB had
discharged its duties under the Coal Mines Act
1911.
Reasonably Practicable ‐ Judgment
If it can be shown that there is a gross
disproportion between them ‐ that the risk is
insignificant in relation to the sacrifice ‐ then,
and only then, will the defendants (in this
case, the NCB) have discharged the duties
imposed on them.
The quantum of risk test is a balancing act,
with the degree of risk being placed on one
side of the scales and the sacrifice involved in
the control measures needed to avert the
risk ‐ that is, time, money and trouble ‐ placed
on the other side.
The Court of Appeal found for the widow,
considering that the defendants had failed to
establish their defence, as the risk far
outweighed the sacrifice.
Local Case Law
Marshall vs Gotham
Local cases